Did Science (and Mr. Rogers) Prove God?

[Etritonakin]

Anyway...... Hopefully I have made people think -and not just that I am a particular kind of crackpot.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Math and logic have been used thus far to reverse-engineer our universe quite effectively -so that we now have a general (though as yet incomplete) understanding of what must have happened to produce that which now exists -and this is possible because we are essentially dealing with the same stuff in a different configuration.

Most are happy with the fact that they "do not see a need for a creator" -and in disproving a few points concerning creationISM.
There has not yet been great interest in the scientific community as a whole to question whether or not creativity was at work at any point -but the same tools could be used.

A creator -whether existing prior to the universe or otherwise -would be a scientific fact worth discovery -and no more ridiculous than searching for other, more similar, life forms.

I think it is not so much that we do not have objects to compare to the universe -but that we cannot easily identify a creator.
I also believe we may not have to compare the universe with anything -but, rather, understand it more completely.

If I were not similar to a human or earth life, and a Lexus landed on my very different planet (or something like Voyager was found by a dissimilar life form), the thing itself would reveal much about itself -its history -and us.

We do have something to compare the universe to, actually -and that is what it was before being what it is now.

We have learned a great deal by comparing the universe to the universe -more correctly, its previous states -but we have not been extremely interested in using that to consider a creator.

We do not have the previous states of the universe avai

Some say it is because it has not yet indicated a creator exists, but this is mostly due to their preconceptions about a creator -and the idea that a creator cannot be shown to be necessary without being able to show the creator.

As I see it, the only reason for suggesting that a creator was involved is because of preconceptions. There is no positive evidence for a creator, and there is no method for detecting a creator. You claim that we can reverse engineer nature, but that would be true whether or not the universe was started by a creator. We can reverse engineer how lightning works, but that doesn't change the fact that lightning occurs spontaneously and naturally without any evidence that an intelligence is involved.

From what I can see, science is not ignoring any testable hypotheses as it relates to a creator. If you want science to test for a creator then you have to figure out how to construct a testable hypothesis. Most of the arguments boil down to a God-of-the-Gaps argument.

(Some random thoughts...... If the universe was written in math and logic -rather, higher math and logic from the most basic -did it require simple math/logic to lead to that which was able to consciously conceive of and "do" that higher math/logic -to bring that higher math/logic into existence from the more simple?
Is the fact that extremely complex math/logic was written -which requires the skills of an extremely capable mathematician/logician to understand and reverse-engineer -proof -in and of itself -of the existence of a first extremely capable mathematician/logician? [acknowledging the difference between doing math/logic and having math/logic done to something -and that a mathematician/logician can write automated programs])

You would first have to show that math and logic were written into the universe.

 

[Etritonakin]

As I see it, the only reason for suggesting that a creator was involved is because of preconceptions. There is no positive evidence for a creator, and there is no method for detecting a creator. You claim that we can reverse engineer nature, but that would be true whether or not the universe was started by a creator. We can reverse engineer how lightning works, but that doesn't change the fact that lightning occurs spontaneously and naturally without any evidence that an intelligence is involved.

From what I can see, science is not ignoring any testable hypotheses as it relates to a creator. If you want science to test for a creator then you have to figure out how to construct a testable hypothesis. Most of the arguments boil down to a God-of-the-Gaps argument.



You would first have to show that math and logic were written into the universe.

I think the reason humanity as a whole considers the possibility of a creator or similar at all is because they can -which is -among other things -evidence of their own creativity -which is available evidence of a possible explanation for the present state of things.

Creativity is an observed origin for otherwise-impossible states.

Spontaneity occurs, but it is not sufficient to explain many aspects of the present state -which is why people consider such things as infinite universes of every possible configuration to explain fine-tuning, etc.

The fact that we use math and logic to reverse-engineer is evidence of how the universe was "written" -but some do not believe it was written by a creative "writer"

I do not believe it is correct to assume there is no possible way to detect a creator.
We understand creativity to a sufficient degree, and we may understand that which all creators would manipulate to a sufficient degree -but not realize it or read the evidence correctly.

I was thinking that some would like to see religion completely eradicated -and some of those believe science alone is the way to proceed -because there is "obviously" no creator. If so, would not science eventually be able to show that there was no creator necessary or possible at any point?
The whole thing with science is pretty much the opposite of "Some things cannot be known".

Some say that there is no evidence of a creator of a specific description because things happen spontaneously, but our own example shows that spontaneity both precedes and follows creativity -and that creativity is essentially steering what is already in motion. Spontaneity allows for creativity.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I think the reason humanity as a whole considers the possibility of a creator or similar at all is because they can -which is -among other things -evidence of their own creativity -which is available evidence of a possible explanation for the present state of things.

Creativity is an observed origin for otherwise-impossible states.

Another preconception would be that certain states are impossible without intelligent intervention.

 

[Etritonakin]

Another preconception would be that certain states are impossible without intelligent intervention.

Don't get me started on the naturally-occurring infinite improbability drive. You sure you don't want to rethink that?

Anyway -edited above and will post more later

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Don't get me started on the naturally-occurring infinite improbability drive. You sure you don't want to rethink that?

If you are going to present probabilities then we will need to see the math. If you think you have an argument to make then go for it. All of the other attempts I have seen rely on personal incredulity with no basis in math and/or commit the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. Perhaps you can surprise me.

 

[Audie]

Anyway...... Hopefully I have made people think -and not just that I am a particular kind of crackpot.

Sorry-ah, but mostly you just made me think you are quite confused.

 

[Audie]

If you are going to present probabilities then we will need to see the math. If you think you have an argument to make then go for it. All of the other attempts I have seen rely on personal incredulity with no basis in math and/or commit the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. Perhaps you can surprise me.

Is Texas Sharpshooter the one who invented the famous Texas Brain Shot?

 

[Etritonakin]

If you are going to present probabilities then we will need to see the math. If you think you have an argument to make then go for it. All of the other attempts I have seen rely on personal incredulity with no basis in math and/or commit the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. Perhaps you can surprise me.

If you think a Plymouth Satellite can fly through space but not have a creator..... I doubt I could surprise you.

 

[Etritonakin]

Sorry-ah, but mostly you just made me think you are quite confused.

I'm OK with that.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

If you think a Plymouth Satellite can fly through space but not have a creator..... I doubt I could surprise you.

I would agree that the Plymouth Satellite has a creator. Is there anything in biology you would like to discuss?

 

[Etritonakin]

I would agree that the Plymouth Satellite has a creator. Is there anything in biology you would like to discuss?

But MUST an automobile have a creator -or is it otherwise impossible?

In relation to the o.p., I might be willing to discuss the periodic table of elements as it relates to biology -because once they existed as such and became arranged as RNA, DNA, etc., life did not need a creator (if they certainly became arranged without creativity) -though a creator could make changes on the fly afterward (as we do, but perhaps by different means).
Some believe that mutation is driven by radiation, but radiation, etc., might be employed by an able creator at any point -so the elements themselves would be a better place to start.

In a universe created to be inhabited, life would not be an afterthought.

So ...must the elements which lend themselves to DNA self-replication have had a creator?
That would depend on whether or not the singularity itself was essentially packaged and executed -or whether it was completely spontaneous -which might be known by understanding pre-universe "stuff".
Also -as a creator of the universe would indicate some sort of life before the universe, is life of any description, intelligence, creativity, etc. dependent upon the elements -or can similar systems be "composed" of dissimilar or pre-universe stuff.

Otherwise, we would need to be able to look at the periodic table itself and find something about it which was indicative of intelligence, creativity, etc. -as would be the case with the Plymouth Satellite in and of itself.

Also... is the fact that the elements, etc., were somehow formed into a vast environment full of interactive raw materials, an awe-inspiring, beautiful, interesting Earthly environment teeming with life forms -only then followed by mass-produced, highly intelligent, creative beings able to consider, appreciate and take advantage of those things (as well as consideration of things beyond them -immortality, etc.) indicative of forethought?

(I did not mention the negative aspects of the present environment and our own activities above for the sake of clarity -but they may also indicate something.)

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

We see new elements being formed in stars through natural processes, so I'm not sure what argument you are trying to make. If you start with a bunch of really high energy sub-atomic particles then you naturally get hydrogen and helium as that energy expands and cools. Once you have hydrogen and helium they can form stars where everything up to iron is made through fusion. Once iron starts forming in large stars they blow up in a supernova, and that is where you get all of the elements from iron to uranium on the periodic table. All naturally formed.

Also... is the fact that the elements, etc., were somehow formed into a vast environment full of interactive raw materials, an awe-inspiring, beautiful, interesting Earthly environment teeming with life forms -only then followed by mass-produced, highly intelligent, creative beings able to consider, appreciate and take advantage of those things (as well as consideration of things beyond them -immortality, etc.) indicative of forethought?

I see no evidence indicating that the Earth is indicative of forethought. Given the immense numbers of solar systems and galaxies in the universe there was bound to be a planet capable of producing intelligent life somewhere in the universe without the need of an intelligence to intervene.

 

[WalterTrull]

...then you naturally get...

Naturally. Gotta be.

there was bound to be a planet capable of producing intelligent life

Is that like the thousand monkeys at the typewriter thing?

 

[Etritonakin]

We see new elements being formed in stars through natural processes, so I'm not sure what argument you are trying to make. If you start with a bunch of really high energy sub-atomic particles then you naturally get hydrogen and helium as that energy expands and cools. Once you have hydrogen and helium they can form stars where everything up to iron is made through fusion. Once iron starts forming in large stars they blow up in a supernova, and that is where you get all of the elements from iron to uranium on the periodic table. All naturally formed.


I see no evidence indicating that the Earth is indicative of forethought. Given the immense numbers of solar systems and galaxies in the universe there was bound to be a planet capable of producing intelligent life somewhere in the universe without the need of an intelligence to intervene.

Once an automated system is running, the results are then natural according to the nature of the system. Automation does not negate initial design -and design does not negate an initially-dynamic nature. Automation is also subject to creative changes at any point.

If life and all else thus far was inevitable after the Big Bang, it was as a result of the nature of the automated system -and does not negate the possibility of initial design. Otherwise, various changes can be made at any point.
Life could have been inevitable afterward -but it has not yet been absolutely shown to be the case.
Also... If we initiated similar life on another planet at this point by repeating what happened on earth, the results would appear natural to a later observer or even a life form which naturally developed the ability to consider the matter.

What caused the singularity in the first place -which was of the specific nature to become the universe, life, etc.? Was design involved? How can we compare the singularity to previous states?

If Earth life was not inevitable after the Big Bang -but the design of the elements intentionally allowed for it at that point -and it then required creative influence to bring certain materials together under the right circumstances -creativity could be applied which could appear natural to us.

If we developed the abiity to alter the course of asteroids from afar and lob them at a planet to change its nature, or as a step toward initiating life, as an example off the top of my head, later observers would not see a necessity for a creator unless they knew what and was not inevitable after the Big Bang.

Again, creativity is about what was otherwise not inevitable -and sometimes what was otherwise not possible -or was not otherwise possible and/or inevitable at the time.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Naturally. Gotta be.

Naturally, because it is observed to be.

Is that like the thousand monkeys at the typewriter thing?

It's like a winning the lottery type of thing.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Once an automated system is running, the results are then natural according to the nature of the system.

Once a natural system is running then natural things happen.

If life and all else thus far was inevitable after the Big Bang, it was as a result of the nature of the automated system -and does not negate the possibility of initial design.

“I mean, you could claim that anything's real if the only basis for believing in it is that nobody's proved it doesn't exist!” --J. K. Rowling

What caused the singularity in the first place -which was of the specific nature to become the universe, life, etc.? Was design involved? How can we compare the singularity to previous states?

Do you have any evidence that it was designed? If not, then why suggest that it was?

If Earth life was not inevitable after the Big Bang -but the design of the elements intentionally allowed for it at that point -and it then required creative influence to bring certain materials together under the right circumstances -creativity could be applied which could appear natural to us.

If pigs had wings they could fly.

 

[Etritonakin]

Once a natural system is running then natural things happen.



“I mean, you could claim that anything's real if the only basis for believing in it is that nobody's proved it doesn't exist!” --J. K. Rowling



Do you have any evidence that it was designed? If not, then why suggest that it was?



If pigs had wings they could fly.

Really?


I think we're done here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really?


I think we're done here.

You do not seem to realize that if you want to claim that there was an intelligent designer that puts the burden of proof upon you. That is why others have asked you for evidence of this designer. All we can say is that the sciences do not indicate any need for an intelligent designer. There is no need for us to refute an intelligent designer any more than there is a need to refute the claim that pixies did it.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Really?


I think we're done here.

It was done when you failed to understand how the burden of proof works. I am more interested in what you can demonstrate to be true than what you can fantasize to be true.